Time: Thu Feb 27 06:49:11 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA25239; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 06:02:13 -0700 (MST) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 06:43:49 -0800 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: federal grand jury challenge (a template) >[This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] > > [ D R A F T] > >Certified U.S. Mail >Serial Number #P-xxx-xxx-xxx >Return Receipt Requested >Restricted Delivery Requested > >Foreperson >Federal Grand Jury >[street] >[city] (zip code exempt) >[STATE] > >In re: Grand Jury Subpoena > Served on Mr. John Doe > >Dear Foreperson: > > At the verbal request of My client, Mr. John Doe, I am >writing this letter to challenge your alleged authority to issue >a subpoena upon Him to testify before your body. We hereby >document the reasons for Our challenge, as follows: > >1. Janet Reno has failed to produce any credentials in response >to a proper and timely Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") >request and appeal submitted for same. In addition to the >request and appeal, a 10-day courtesy notice was also mailed to >Ms. Reno. Her deadline for producing credentials was 5:00 p.m. >on Friday, January 24, 1997. Her failure to produce the >requisite credentials means that she is now estopped from >claiming any of the authorities which can be exercised by the >Attorney General, because her silence is a fraud, pursuant to >U.S. v. Tweel, and her silence activates estoppel, pursuant to >Carmine v. Bowen. Thus, the U.S. Attorney(s) who signed the >subpoena to Mr. Doe have no delegation of authority at all. > >2. The federal Jury Selection and Service Act, 28 U.S.C. 1861 >thru 1865, is unconstitutional for exhibiting prohibited class >discrimination against Citizens of [UNION-STATE] state who are >not also federal citizens. This is the case, even though each >and every member of your "grand jury" is otherwise qualified, >according to the requirements of this Act. The problem is that >the Act itself is unconstitutional, and its unconstitutionality >dates from the moment of its enactment. In several federal cases >around the nation, this challenge has been placed properly before >federal courts, but they are now obstructing justice by failing >to rule on it. Accordingly, your body is not a lawful grand >jury, and Mr. Doe cannot be compelled to testify before a group >of people who are not a lawful body. > >3. Evidence now shows that specific employees of the federal >government receive financial kick-backs upon obtaining federal >grand jury indictments against the "enemies" of the President. >These kick-backs include $25,000 per indictment to U.S. >Attorneys, and $35,000 per indictment to the President of the >United States. These kick-backs are being paid under color of a >defunct federal program called the Performance Management and >Recognition System ("PMRS"). A FOIA request for all financial >records of the PMRS system has been submitted to the U.S. >Department of the Treasury. A staff attorney in the Treasury >Department has responded by admitting that there are no records >for many PMRS kick-backs, because they were paid in CASH! Add to >this the evidence of widespread perjury and property conversion >rackets within the Department of Justice, using computer software >which was stolen by that Department, and you have the makings of >a massive criminal conspiracy among employees of the U.S. >Department of Justice, the "Internal Revenue Service" [sic], and >possibly also the federal judiciary. > >4. Recent research has also proven that the federal judiciary >has sabotaged the U.S. Constitution and corrupted laws governing >the conduct of the federal courts. This has been done in part by >creating the false impression that the United States District >Court ("USDC") has territorial and subject matter jurisdiction >within the several States of the Union, particularly over >criminal prosecutions, when it does not. The truth is that the >USDC is designed to adjudicate matters that arise within the >federal zone, and the District Court of the United States >("DCUS") is designed to adjudicate matters that arise within the >state zone. You will notice on the subpoena which you attempted >to serve upon Mr. Doe, that the USDC is named. This is a fraud >upon you, upon Me, upon Mr. Doe, and upon all American People, >who enjoy the fundamental guarantee of due process of law. >Sedition by syntax is not due process of law. > > For your edification, We have attached to this letter a >number of essays, and additional documents, which constitute >material evidence to support the challenges which We bring to you >in this letter. These documents also constitute probable cause >to charge the U.S. Attorney(s) in Mr. Doe's case with fraud, jury >tampering, and perjury of oath, not to mention a host of other >criminal violations of pertinent federal laws. See Title 18, >United States Code, Sections 241 and 242, for example. > > Please give all this evidence your careful and considerate >attention. > > The future of this nation is riding on what you do. > > >Sincerely yours, > > > > >Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. >Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness, >Counselor at Law, and Counsel to Mr. John Doe > >attachments > >copies: Mr. John Doe > The Internet > > > # # # ======================================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness email: [address in tool bar] : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this ========================================================================
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail